AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH vs DINESHKUMAR B JANI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3352/2012 (GJHC240401262012) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3352 of 2012
=============================================
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH
Versus
DINESHKUMAR B JANI
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VASANTS SHAH(810) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 09/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the
appellant. Mr. C.V. Darji, learned advocate appears on behalf
of Mr. Vasant S. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed to challenge the arbitral
awards dated 03.11.2009 and 11.10.2009 on the ground that
various factual aspects have not been looked into by the
learned arbitrator.
3. The submission is that the arbitral award is against the
principles of law, inasmuch as, the claims have been awarded
without any cogent evidence. Apart from these two
submissions, no other grounds have been agitated to
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 14:38:59 IST 2026
C/FA/3352/2012 (GJHC240401262012) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
challenge the correctness of the arbitral awards.
4. We may note from the judgment and order dated
12.06.2012 passed by the Civil Court in the proceeding under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in
short as the “Act’1996”) that the same issues were raised
before the Court under Section 34 and the Court has returned
its findings in paragraph ‘8’ as under :-
“8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned
Advocates for the parties and the documentary evidence
produced on record, it appears that there is no dispute
between the parties regarding Arbitral proceedings and
appointment of Arbitrator. I have also perused the
Arbitral Proceedings and also perused the Award passed
by the learned Arbitrator. I have also peruse the
Rejoinder filed by Kanubhai Hasmukhbhai shah vide
Ex.14 and Affidavit-in-Rejoinder vide Ex.15 on behalf of
the applicant. On perusing the Award and documentary
evidence produced by the parties, it appears that the
tender of opponent has been passed by the applicant for
development and fencing of the open plots situated in
T.P. Scheme No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of Vejalpur. In this case
the applicant has stated that the opponent has,
demanded Rs.14,32,470-17 paise with interest and for
that the opponent has produced statement before the
learned Arbitrator which is false and got up, but the
applicant failed to prove the same. The applicant has
also stated that the opponent has not completed the
work and so the applicant has published the tender in
the year 2002-03 and as per the said tender the Vishnu
trading Company has completed the said incomplete
work but the applicant has not produced any
documentary evidence to show that the opponent has
not completed the work and the Vishnu Trading
company has completed the work. Moreover the
applicant has also not produced any documentary
evidence to show that the applicant has not completed
the work. On perusing the Arbitral proceedings it
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 14:38:59 IST 2026
C/FA/3352/2012 (GJHC240401262012) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
appears that the Award passed by the learned
Arbitrator s just and proper, legal and valid and the
learned Arbitrator has considered all the aspects and
has not committed any error in passing the Award and
further order. The Award passed by the learned
Arbitrator is not against the established principle of law.
Therefore the Award passed by the learned Sole
Arbitrator is not against the record, facts, evidence and
oral as well as written submission. The applicant has
stated that there was encroachment upon the final plot
No.214 and 216 and hence the applicant has not done
the work on the said plots but the applicant failed to
prove that there was an encroachment upon the above
final plots. In view of the above facts and circumstances
of the case the learned Arbitrator has rightly passed the
award dated 3/11/2009 and further order dated
26/11/2009 in Arbitration Petition No.6/2007 and there
is no any illegality or perversity in the award passed by
the learned Arbitrator and therefore this court is not
required to interfere with the award and further order
passed by learned Arbitrator as the applicant failed to
prove its case and hence the present application of the
applicant is required to be dismissed and hence I pass
the following order.”
5. The reasoning given by the Court under Section 34 of
the Act’ 1996 that on perusal of the award and documentary
evidence produced by the parties, it was evident that the
claimant had produced the statement of claims before the
learned arbitrator, which was agitated to be false and got up,
could not be proved by the applicant.
6. The assertion that the claimant had not completed the
work and the work was completed by some other agency was
also not proved by the applicant/appellant herein by
producing any documentary evidence. There was an
assertion with regard to the non-completion of work over two
plots, namely, Final Plot Nos. 214 and 216 of development and
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 14:38:59 IST 2026
C/FA/3352/2012 (GJHC240401262012) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
fencing which could not be proved by the applicant/appellant
by producing any cogent evidence.
7. A bare perusal of the arbitral award indicates that the
issue framed by the learned arbitrator as to whether the
claimant proved that he completed the work as per agreement
in time, it was noted that the entire case depends upon the
documentary evidences filed by the parties, and they have
chosen not to adduce any ocular evidence.
8. From the evidence on record, a finding of fact has been
recorded in the impugned award that a letter dated
23.09.2002, Exhibit 4, clearly shows that the work was
completed, but there was a possibility of delay on account of
audit in the bill and, therefore, the claimant had asked for
extension. There are other material documents on record,
which have been referred to in the arbitral award to reach at
a conclusion that the contention of respondent/appellant
herein regarding non-completion of work by the claimant was
nothing but an afterthought and that it was raised at a very
belated stage.
9. A categorical finding has been recorded by the learned
arbitrator after perusal of the material documents on record
that there was no reason to believe that the work as per the
agreement was done in time by the claimant, final bill though
was sent by the claimant in time, but even after second
reminder, it was overlooked by the appellant. In absence of
the detailed measurement submitted by the appellant, there
was no reason to disbelieve the final bill wherein all details
have been given by the claimant.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 14:38:59 IST 2026
C/FA/3352/2012 (GJHC240401262012) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
10. The respondent/applicant herein has miserably failed to
prove the contentions raised by it regarding non-completion of
work of Item No.5, regarding the delay in work by the
claimant, and since the appellant had not produced the
measurement, etc., before tribunal and the relevant
documents, an adverse inference was drawn against it.
11. The concurrent finding returned by the learned
arbitrator and the Court under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996,
cannot be re-appreciated within the scope of Section 37 of the
Act’ 1996. It is well settled that mere error of fact or law
cannot be taken as a ground to set aside the arbitral award.
12. Within the scope of Section 37 of the Act, 1996, the
Court has no jurisdiction to look into the merits of the arbitral
award. No good ground has been made out to interfere in the
arbitral award and on the plea of mere illegality or non-
consideration of alleged relevant documents, the correctness
of the arbitral award cannot be assailed.
13. In view of the above, the present appeal is being
dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Sep 11 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 11 14:38:59 IST 2026